EVERGREEN BAMBOO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 8(1), DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)/’NFAC’ for short), dated 04/07/2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 09 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condoning the delay. For the reason sated in the application of condonation of delay, the delay of 09 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 15/05/2023 u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 1,61,34,250/-
2
Evergreen Bamboo India Limited Vs. ITO u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated
15/05/2023, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 04/07/2024, sustained the addition made on account of profit element at 12.5% of the alleged sales amounting to Rs. 20,16,782/- and deleted the remaining addition of Rs. 141,17,468/-. As against sustaining the addition of Rs.
20,16,782/-, Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given cogent reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 20,16,782/- and the partial addition has been sustained without providing adequate opportunity to the Assessee to rebut the presumption and the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of principals of natural justice, thus sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was gracious enough to grant sufficient relief to the Assessee, however only sustained the addition on account of profit element at 12.5% on the alleged sales amounting to Rs. 20,16,782/- which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The only grievance of the Assessee is sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,16,782/-. It is the specific case of the Ld.
3
Assessee's Representative that no adequate opportunity has been given to the Assessee before sustaining partial addition by the Ld.
CIT(A). Though the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.
1,41,17,468/-, not assigned any reason for sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,16,782/-. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the matter requires to be examined by the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the sustained addition of Rs. 20,16,782/- afresh and pass the appropriate proper in accordance with law. Needless to say, as the Department has not challenged deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,41,17,468/- made by the Ld. CIT(A), the same has not been disturbed by us.
7. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2025 (AMITABH SHUKLA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date:- 31 .10.2025
R.N, Sr.P.S*